Except they didn’t use the words “false flag”. Despite the accusation being the exact definition of the thing that a false flag attack is, you won’t see the US government using that term, nor will you ever see it used in this instance by any of the authorized mainstream narrative-framing institutions like CNN or Fox News. This is because the term “false flag” is reserved solely for mention when referring to crazy, kooky Kremlin propaganda, as in the insane, unhinged, tinfoil hat belief that terrorists in Syria might possibly have some kind of motive to stage a false flag chemical attack in order to get the US, UK and France to act as their air force in a retaliatory strike against the Syrian government. That kind of false flag would be completely inconceivable to any right-minded empire loyalist, and is forbidden to even think about.

At the same time we are seeing a push from the mass media to advance a narrative that the Yellow Vests protests in France are due to Russian influence, with Iraq-raping neocon Max Boot publishing a column today in the Washington Post that is based entirely around the talking point that two trending Russian topics on social media have been “giletsjaune” and “France,” and Bloombergputting out an article blatantly titled “Pro-Russia Social Media Takes Aim at Macron as Yellow Vests Rage”. Their entire theory is that since there are people in Russia talking about a major event that everyone else in the world is also talking about, the protests against Macron’s unpopular centrist policies are therefore the result of a conspiracy seeded by Russia.

But you’ll never hear this theory about a Russian conspiracy referred to as a “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream press. The theory that Russian elites have conspired to infiltrate the highest levels of the US government has been given serious treatment at the top echelons of media and political influence, despite its lacking any discernible evidence whatsoever, but when they talk about these alleged conspiracies they always make a point of using the word “collusion” instead. There is no actual difference between the words collude and conspire when used in this way, but the former is used because a deliberate effort has been made to stigmatize the word “conspiracy” while the word “collude” remains effectively neutral in the public eye.

But the fact of the matter is that conspiracy theories have gone mainstream, and there is no legitimate reason to call the authorized, power-manufactured conspiracy theories by a different name than the grassroots narratives like those about 9/11 or the JFK assassination. Indeed, due to the nature of populist folk narratives there is a lot more publicly available evidence contradicting the official 9/11 and JFK assassination stories than there is for the establishment Russia conspiracy theories, because those narratives often boil down to nothing more than secretive intelligence agencies saying “This is true because we said so.” Since grassroots conspiracy theories are unable to rely on empty assertions from authority, they tend to be built upon information that is publicly available.

Some people get annoyed with me for using the term conspiracy theory at all, but I insist that the phrase is itself intrinsically neutral: a theory about a conspiracy. The problem is not the phrase, it is the stigma that has been attached to that phrase by establishment media and establishment politicians; shifting to a different phrase to describe theories about conspiracies would only ensure that that phrase becomes stigmatized in the exact same way by the same sort of campaign. This would only ensure the survival of the tactic of regurgitating a pre-stigmatized label in the war of ideas instead of advancing actual arguments. The fact of the matter is that powerful people do indeed conspire, those conspiracies do indeed need to be talked about, and the largest promulgators of conspiracy theories are not Infowars or RT, but mainstream media and the US State Department.

Those who dismiss an idea by calling it a “conspiracy theory” without providing further argumentation are simply admitting to you that they have no argument, and it is right to point this out when they do it, because something being a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean it’s not grounded in facts. Some conspiracy theories are good and are backed by solid evidence, some are stupid and are circulated for intellectually dishonest reasons. Once upon a time you would be called a conspiracy theorist for saying the west is arming terrorists in Syria or the DNC is conspiring to ensure the primary victory of Hillary Clinton; those things are now conspiracy facts, as history has vindicated the solid theories which predicted them. Other conspiracy theories are promulgated by dim-witted partisan loyalists for no other reason than dim-witted partisan loyalty, like the aforementioned Russiagate conspiracy theory, or the QAnon conspiracy theory which claims Donald Trump is leading a rebellion against the Deep State as cryptically reported by an anonymous user on 8chan.

Other conspiracy theories are subscribed to simply because they help people escape the cognitive dissonance of conflicting beliefs. For example, a strong believer in capitalism who sees the undeniable signs that a plutocratic class has control of their government, but who cannot accept that this plutocratic takeover was facilitated by a rampant capitalist system which ensures that the greediest sociopaths rise to the top, may avoid cognitive dissonance by explaining the existence of the corrupt dominator class with conspiracy theories about Jews or pedovore cults. A liberal who cannot accept that neoliberal empire loyalists like Macron have failed to “make centrism cool” as Max Boot predicted will avoid cognitive dissonance by explaining the failures of the Church of the Status Quo with conspiracy theories about Russian social media campaigns.

To defeat populism, America needs its own Macron–a charismatic leader who can make centrism cool. My take: https://t.co/AAF1YwTnqb

Conspiracy theories, in reality, are nothing more than people’s attempts to explain what is going on in their world. Why Trump got elected. Why things stay shitty despite our perfectly rational attempts to change them. Why voting doesn’t seem to make much difference in the actual behaviors of one’s government. Why we keep marching into stupid wars, Orwellian dystopia and climate collapse despite having every incentive not to. Why the wealthiest of the wealthy keep getting wealthier while everyone else gets poorer and poorer. Some attempts to explain these things will come from a well-informed and intellectually honest place, and some will come from a myopic and intellectually dishonest place. Their individual merits can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

And in my opinion the conspiracy theories coming from the world’s most powerful institutions are the most dishonest by far. I saw a recent post by the WikiLeaks Twitter account which referred to the corporate media as “the narrative business pretending to be in the news business,” which is in my opinion a perfect way to phrase it. The real currency of the world is not gold, nor is it bureaucratic fiat, nor even raw military force; it’s narrative control. The ability to control the stories people tell about what’s going on in their world means the ability to control how they think, how they vote, how they behave, and how they all agree money and power itself operates within our society. Since society is made of narrative, controlling the narrative is controlling that society.

Conspiracy theories are a way for those in power to manipulate the narrative without actually giving the public any hard facts and evidence, and the world’s most powerful institutions are increasingly relying on conspiracy theories because they don’t have facts and evidence on their side. And why would they? The same power establishment which deceived the world into destroying Iraq is obviously far too depraved to be able to justify its global hegemony with factual evidence. All they have is narrative control, and they’re starting to lose even that.

Patricia Ormsby/December 12, 2018

Patricia Ormsby/December 12, 2018

I was trying to reply to Old Joe, way down in the comments, but Capcha sent me back to try again and the comment wound up here. (Also “when” should be “went” but I don’t think that was Capcha’s fault.)

TFS/December 10, 2018

For other Conspiracy Theories:

1. 9/11. Is that unreacted explovisive material in the dust or what? 2. RFK. How close was the purpetraitor and how close was the gun to the skull that killed RFK? 3. PanAm103: At each stage of the flight, who was due to embark onto the plane & who changed their minds? 4. 7/7: Tell me again about those autopysies that failed to be carried out (but were required by Law ) to acertain how those died, had in fact died?

TFS/December 10, 2018

With so much info out there, it’s sometimes easy for people to glaise over and go with the flow when someone challenges them on the Official Conspiracy theory.

Take the JFK assasination.

By all means write your book, but please have a foreward about the Term Conspiracy Theory, its defintion, its subversion by the CIA, & MSM’s constant use of it without proper attribution.

By all means write your book/article, but maybe include a consensus fact to challenge anyone who supports the Official Conspiracy Theory. In the assasination of the JFK, I would suggest:

1. State One Fact: Back and the left. 2. Question: Please explain using science, how a bullet from the TSBD caused the head of JFK to exhibit the movement outlined in 1. Publish all your work for transparency and the ability for anyone to replicate your results.

Having the possibility that the Question above evers becomes answered, we could move onto something else, thus controlling the narrative. I call it the Columbo Strategy…..’Just one more thing….”

klaus von berlin/December 10, 2018

Kurt V/December 9, 2018

“…a strong believer in capitalism who sees the undeniable signs that a plutocratic class has control of their government, but who cannot accept that this plutocratic takeover was facilitated by a rampant capitalist system which ensures that the greediest sociopaths rise to the top, may avoid cognitive dissonance by explaining the existence of the corrupt dominator class with conspiracy theories about pedovore cults…”

Speed round, in no particular order: – Capitalism means without government involvement, influence, interference, regulations, steering, subsidizing, restricting, taxing, etc. – Capitalism means voluntary commerce. The word has nothing to do with power, especially the government kind, which is based on committing violence against another person. – A “plutocratic” (ruled or controlled by wealthy people) government is redundant. All governments or ruling entities have always been plutocratic, if not quickly became plutocratic. – The very nature of government — taking from others by violence or the threat of violence — creates plutocrats. – Government = power. Power corrupts. – Government’s power attracts sociopaths. Sociopaths are often greedy. – The basic idea of “ruling” over other people (telling them what to do) is sociopathic. – Governments (or any ruling entities) have always been run by sociopaths, or quickly became run by sociopaths. The more powerful the government, the more depraved the rulers and bureaucrats running it. – “…a rampant capitalist system which ensures that the greediest sociopaths rise to the top” is not capitalism and never has been. If you’re referring to the current-day US you’re describing corporatism or crony capitalism, but taken on its own, your statement more accurately describes fascism or socialism or communism or any other totalitarian form of government.

and so, it should come as no surprise that

– Since governments are largely comprised of sociopaths — from mild to blow-your-mind-insanely-extreme sociopaths (people who happily murder millions), there are a lot of pedophiles (predators) and at the extreme (remember, the jolly murderers?) even pedovore cults.

Summary: Why do you feel the need to attack something that is good and natural and at the worst neutral — voluntaryism/capitalism, but never attack the thing that is the root of a lot of human suffering, which is the desire to rule over other people?

No he didn’t. He highlighted how she and all leftists completely fail to understand what capitalism is. They are like people who note that Jack the Ripper once roamed the streets of London and exclaim, “See! Capitalism!”

Cancer is not an indicator of the essence of the organism but a deviation from the norm. Failure to maintain an automobile is a misuse of it, not a necessary and essential aspect of enjoying a functioning marvel of technology.

This is not difficult stuff.

Caitlin has redeeming insights as a reasonable leftists but for someone capable of that she’s absurdly willing to swallow whole what she aptly focuses on here — stupid “narratives” of “capitalism” and “warmingism.”

Joe Surkiewicz/December 9, 2018

Per media expert Mark Crispin Miller at NYU “conspiracy theory” was promoted by the CIA in the late 60s as a way to dismiss critics of the Warren Commission report. Brilliant propaganda device to dismiss anyone who doesn’t buy in to the official line.

rudolf/December 9, 2018

On conspiracy theories. I believe that it is in the state’s interests to advance conspiracy theories on everything. I would assume there is a branch of some state agency tucked away in the Beltway where dozens of nerds come up with conspiracy theories every day. The more, the better. 9/11 for example. The more theories, the more disagreement from the detractors of the official narrative therefore a win for misinformation. Just a little bit of truth is needed and what better agency than the state to supply another theory or twist on an existing one. That way the truth becomes so entangled with the near-truth that us mugs just shrug in wonderment and go paying our taxes and abiding by the laws of the state.

Peter Gill/December 9, 2018

The idea that the 9/11 conspiracy was created by the government is pretty crazy. I myself became a 9/11 Truther (in 2004) just from looking at the facts as did by far most Truthers. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has spent years intensively studying all of the architectural and engineering aspects of 9/11 in coming to the conclusions that they have. In fact every aspect of 9/11 has been extensively researched and the research is continuing.

Patricia Ormsby/December 12, 2018

Even on the day of the 9/11 events, at least one news commentators was saying the implosions looked just like controlled demolition. Once “controlled demolition” got dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” no one could touch it without getting tarred. I am one of the signers of AE911’s petition for an independent investigation into the possible (I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt) use of high explosives to bring down the three towers. When the events occurred I was away from all visual media for an extended time in Siberia, and by the time I returned, the official narrative was in place, and I didn’t question it until a month or two later when the Japanese late-night media presented a documentary on demolition, and then the absolute impossibility of a structurally weakened tower rapidly collapsing straight down into its own base without carefully planned execution of explosions by a profession team hit me very hard. If you point this out to people who have some knowledge of basic physics and have not been indoctrinated to dismiss it out of hand (many Japanese will do), they immediately see it. Otherwise it’ s “Who would do that? 19 unshaven guys with boxcutters, that’s who, overseen by a god-like guy in a cave somewhere. Until then I’d considered the US government bumbling but benign.

Rick Hartley/December 9, 2018

The most interesting thing about the accusations coming from the Deep State is, that they give a detailed map of how they themselves operate. Who would ever even think to suspect that governments would attack their own people just to blame it on an adversary? They give credence to every conspiracy theory out there when they accuse others. Basically, the rules are as follows: 1. If the US government is blamed for an “inside job” terror act in our own country, that’s a “conspiracy theory”. 2 If the US government is blamed for inciting terror acts in another country, that, too, is a “conspiracy theory”. In short…any information that blames an adversary is “intelligence”, but any information that blames the US or it’s allies is a “conspiracy theory”.

Peter Gill/December 9, 2018

Larry C./December 9, 2018

On March 30, 2005, in the aftermath of the so-called Lavon affair, Israel’s President honored spies who had conducted false-flag operations against US, UK, and Egyptian installations in 1954. The certificates given to the surviving spies acknowledged that the operations had actually occurred, despite 51 years of repeated denials by Israeli administrations. On July 14, 1954, libraries of the U.S. Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo were bombed and Arabs were blamed. The “Lavon affair” obtained that name after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign as a consequence. We should no doubt continue to believe in the non-reality of conspiracies and that entities fostering theories about them are insane.

Johny Conspiranoid/December 9, 2018

Patricia Ormsby/December 12, 2018

It was in about 1997 that a friend investigating health effects of non-ionizing radiation, from which he suffered, pointed out to me that the prevalence and popularity of tabloids served at that time as a handy tar brush to smear anyone presenting inconvenient research results. (Roll of eyes. “Long wait in the check-out lane?) The Net has supplied a much bigger brush.

With some critical understanding and the ability to apply causality in your thought process, one will soon grasp the manipulative nature of disinformation some theories are built on and not stay blind to the fact of global mind pollution being fabricated to further the profits of those who spend a lot of money for the manipulative media to fuck your brains daily not to just buy the right brand of tooth past but so you stop feeling the satisfaction of advancing your intellect so you get to understand which socio-political forces will be losing out big time when reducing mind pollution gets to be the future top issue – the ecology is important but not taking care of your ability to grasp reality with both hands is far more important, if you ask me –

Old Joe/December 9, 2018

Changing the word we use doesn’t help. At first, the word Liberal meant the people marching in the streets and nearly revolting to stop the Vietnam War and end racial segregation and other causes. But before too long, the pro-war, pro-banker fake left started using the word and began calling themselves liberal. The true leftists didn’t like the company, and began to resurrect an older phrase and called themselves progressives. Now, pro-war, pro-corporate fake leftists like Hillary and Obama call themselves progressives. So abandoning one perfectly good word or phrase and adopting another doesn’t do any good, as they will soon adopt or attack the new phrase as they see fit. And they have the media fire-power to adjust very quickly.

One thing about working in an environment where the opposition has mass-media superiority is that we need to be consistent in our approach so that someone who hears us once, then hears a lot of CNN et al, then finally hears us again can have some consistency in what they hear from us. Better chance of what we say sticking with them and getting through.

Robert Russell/December 9, 2018

Andrew Wilson/December 9, 2018

1. Your new SuperCapcha tool does not permit enlargement of images; you are imposing a self-limiting censorship which will drive off commentors. It also seems to impose some sort of time limit. I was attempting to write these remarks when your system threw up a “Verification expired” flag – and just did it again! OK, so your conversation with your readers is now a Twitter channel. Thought you opposed this sort of choke on the information highway…….

Old Joe/December 9, 2018

LOL … I just hope they are being obvious, and when they ask for bicycles there isn’t a tiny one hidden in the background.

I suspect its a necessary evil these days. Even if I hate having to unblock Google from my browser. And I also read enough good science fiction to know that someday society will look back and be shocked that there was discrimination against robots.

Tweets

"And ironically, years ago, when I first got into the FBI, one of the missions of the FBI in its counterintelligence efforts was to try and keep these people out of government." https://t.co/fh4ePI0j3B

Here's an Israeli government official calling Michelle Alexander's column in the NYT about Palestinian rights, based on MLK's philosophy, a "strategic threat," and warns that Israel will "treat it as such." How will Israel treat Alexander's column as a "strategic threat"? Creepy